In article <1422079.PtAHdRdLM9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's typically the BSD which I don't criticise much. As for Quicktime (worms),
> iTunes (DRM), iPhone (kill switches) and other rigid components, they are as
> user-hostile and harmful as Windows, at least in the long term, IMHO. The same
> goes for companies like Google and IBM... swapping 'masters' leaves you
> enslaved to software (and a vendor) that controls the users rather than just
> selling a product to them. There was another "devil" before Microsoft. We
> don't want to just replace Microsoft with another malicious tyrant, do we?
> (no, not necessarily Apple, either)
>
> The FSF relies on no single company. They realise they can be betrayed and
> companies operate with other interests in mind. Collaborations like that which
> you find around Linux (the kernel) is a positive example of how things can and
> should be done. It doesn't stifle competition or slow down advancement.
I understand your hostility to large companies given all of our
knowledge about Microsoft and, frankly, their bullying. However, Apple
hasn't shown us that dark side. From being the underdog so many years
they have had to innovate like crazy just to stay solvent. Apple has
been on death's door a few times and products like the original iMac and
iPod may never have seen the light of day if not for the motivation to
make money.
It's interesting how for-profit companies like Apple and Microsoft, when
they play by the rules, can create good products. Free and OSS is a
wonderful thing, but money as a motivator has given us amazingly
powerful hardware and slick software. It is when a company tries to
hamstring us that a problem exists. I can criticize the iPhone, too, but
the fact remains the open source community didn't make one, Apple did.
For $200+contract it remains the best smartphone I can buy. I wish there
were an OSS one, but there isn't. When a linux-based smartphone is
available from my carrier (I live in the US) I'll get one.
Apple makes software (and sells hardware) to make money. This is not a
bad thing. They are hardly in a position to become a "tyrant." An ideal
world would have several OS's splitting the market, some free and some
OSS and a fair amount of interoperability between them. This situation
would engender the highest level of innovation within such companies
endeavoring to grow their market.
iTunes is an interesting case. Love it or hate it (you don't *have* to
buy any DRM content to use iTunes) it is absolutely free and a fine
piece of software for managing a music collection. The introduction of
iTunes and the iTunes music store stimulated quite a few not very
successful attempts by Microsoft, Dell, Rhapsody, Napster, etc, to
attempt the same which forced Apple to then step up their own game. Now
you can buy DRM-free tracks right from inside iTunes!
iTunes' DRM was always so weak anyway that you could burn a *protected*
track to CD (as red-book audio) as many as 7 times and just rip it back
in as an *unprotected* one right from inside iTunes. Took 5 minutes.
|
|
